Orson Scott Card Weighs In On ID

_{January 22, 2006

Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a most excellent article one of the modern greats of science fiction weighs in on the controversy between ID and Darwinian evolution.

Read Creation and Evolution in the Schools by Orson Scott Card.

Comments

Bombadill, That's pretty funny. I guess Ashby Camp gets the last word, unless Theobald happens to be working on a rejoinder to the rebuttal of the response to the critique of the article. :-)watchmaker_{January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp Check. ;)Bombadill_{January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Thanks Guys. I'll check out "talk origins" and continue my search for any evidence for macro-evolution. Believe it or not, I've been reading websites, blogs and journals for close to two years and have not read one thing that constitutes scientifc evidence for macro-evolution. I'll report back. I'm sure you all can hardly wait. :) Saxesaxe17_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

My response might be a genetic fallacy but in this case the source says more than enough. ;) I'd rather read the evidence/data myself instead of relying on Talk Origins, thank you very much.Patrick_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

And if you read the critique, be sure to read the rebuttal of the critique: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html Your move, Bombadill. :-)watchmaker_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

If you read watchmaker's article, be sure to also read it's critique: http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.aspBombadill_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Saxe, There is a section called "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution -- The Scientific Case for Common Descent" at talkorigins.org: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/watchmaker_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Patrick, Thanks anyway. Saxesaxe17_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

There was a list of peer-reviewed articles I found posted a while back on a different forum. From the brief descriptions I think I have read some of those articles in the past. Needless to say the ones I have read did not impress me very much. Unfortunately the person who posted the list hadn't read many of the articles himself (I think I had read more, actually). He couldn't say which one provided the best evidence for his assertion that the articles did indeed document cases of macro-evolution. To read it all you'd also have to have a subscription to multiple magazines. Some might not even be available on the internet. Anyway, I can post the list if you want it.Patrick_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Dave, I had earlier asked you for references providing evidence supporting macro-evolution. You asked me to read BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book, which I will do. However, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m wondering if there might be a better resource more devoted to macro-evolution evidence than BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book? For example, Behe states "I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species.Ã¢â‚¬Â BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s statement does appear to be a statement of faith. He looks at similarity and concludes evolution. It seems to me that one could just as easily see similarity and conclude a creator. Someone might see a creator that would use the same basic structures for all life and would therefore see a creator in all the many similarities. If there is evidence for macro-evolution, Behe doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t appear to state it. Anyway, I am more interested in the evidence itself. Sorry to bother you again with this question, but is there a good source that lays out actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution? In other words, are there documented scientific observations or experiments that demonstrate macro-evolution? Thanks Again, Saxesaxe17_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

His personal faith-based opinion isn't his scientific opinion. Are we promoting ID as science or faith here? If it's faith I'm outta here.DaveScot_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Dave, Dembski & Behe make it clear that macro-evolution is perfectly compatible with ID. However, Dembski's personal position is one which rejects this notion. You can read about it here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf My point being simply that there are respected intellectuals and scientists who are highly skeptical of macro-evolution, regardless of the mechanism. So, we shouldn't be too quick to point the finger of ridicule at those who question it.Bombadill_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Bullet If I didn't disagree with 7 I wouldn't be here. The evidence of design is overwhelming. Nowhere in recorded history has a machine been observed that wasn't of intelligent origin. Cells are filled with machines that perform specific functions for the cell. The Darwinists have been trying for 150 years to convince people the appearance of design is an illusion. They've failed. The complex molecular machinery inside even the simplest cell was their undoing.DaveScot_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Using the very tactics he himself has listed, he expects us to believe he's an honest intellectual. I'm not buying it. If (7) were indeed true, the first six tactics would not be necessary at all.Bullet_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Dave, I think your anaology hits it on the head. :) Saxesaxe17_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 7 Wow, what a lovely trick! I'm impressed.Bullet_{January 24, 2006
January
01
Jan
24
24
2006
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Saxe I read the Worldmag article you linked. It was kind of tedious and off topic until the end. Then there's a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn't science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isn't science? That's like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isn't it? Thanks for pointing that out to me.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Saxe re philosophy of science book recommendation I was being flippant. Sorry. Just go to wiki and follow all the hyperlinks until you get your fill. There's very little reason in this day & age to kill trees for basic information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_scienceDaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Dave, Will do. Do you recommend any particular book on the philosophy of science? Is there one perhaps that isn't written by a scientist? I recently read this article that caught me off guard. http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=11428 I'm not trying to be snotty, by the way, but Dr. Dewberry is inclining me to believe that perhaps scientists shouldn't be defining what is and what isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t science. If the rules (metaphysical vs. physical, etc.) are in fact philosophical and not scientific, why should scientists be the rulers of a philosophical game? Dr. Newberry is seems to be on to something when he says Ã¢â‚¬Å“At the dawn of modern science, it was the Catholic Church that argued that the authority of science rested with the community of practitioners (theirs, of course). It was the Copernicans, especially Galileo, who argued that the authority of science and truth rested with the individual scientist. Moving the authority of science to the individual scientist was one of the key steps in the Copernican Revolution and the foundation of modern science. We have essentially come full circle. We just replaced one priesthood for another. We have returned to the model of authority of the medieval Catholic Church.Ã¢â‚¬Â Thank You, Saxesaxe17_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Just for the record, Dembski on common descent: http://www.theism.net/article/16
More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.
My emphasis. Our best science does indeed tell us that all living things are related by common descent. What our best science doesn't tell us is that random mutation is the source of all modification. Random mutation's seemingly miraculous power to create everything we've observed as of the year of our Lord 2006 is a load of crap - a grand extrapolation which might have been justified 100 years ago when it was thought that the fossil record would eventually fully support Darwin and before we knew how incredibly complex and interdependent the various molecular subsystems are in even the simplest living cell. Random mutation has been exposed as woefully inadequate to explain all that. live with it cheerfully... I'm not feeling the cheer from some folks here. :-) DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Saxe Start out by reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". There are no proofs in science by the way. You should probably also pick up a book on the philosophy of science while you're at it. Get back to me when you've done that.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Red You are wrong. You are still conflating macro-evolution with unguided evolution. Here are the words straight from Behe's mouth and they're EXACTLY what I've been trying to explain to you. Dembski's position is quite similar to Behe's. They're both on the same page.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Behe: I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species. That's where Darwin's mechanism comes in. "Evolution" also sometimes implies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in great changes -- and, indeed, wholly different animals.
My emphasis. If you want to argue further about this write to Michael Behe and tell him he really does have a quarrel with the idea of common descent. You've taken up all the bandwidth on this thread I'm going to allow on it.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Did anyone catch this STUNNING article in NewScientist about plants emitting methane? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925342.600 A bit off-topic, but none the less staggering. Saxesaxe17_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Yes, but there are myriad eggs, chicken, lizard, fish, preying mantis, etc. But not an "everything" egg.jacktone_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Dave What evidence do you use to prove that macroevolution is "settled science"? Can you give me some resources (web sites, papers, books, etc.) which site evidence used in your proofs? In other words, please direct me to resources that would debunk the theory that the human body, for example, wasn't designed in a day instead of billions of years. Respectfully, Saxesaxe17_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Dave, I appreciate your conviction and I understand how important it is to you. But I'm with Dr. Dembski on this. I've read Denton and Behe and they are convincing. In my opinion, the concept of "irreducible complexity" simply nukes in toto the concept of macro-evolution. For analogy, the design of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and its production are complete in one life time. All of Da Vinci's paintings bear a striking resemblance, but the one painting on the wall of the dining hall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan was drawn from raw materials right then and there: he didn't assemble parts of paintings he had gathered from elsewhere. Micro-evolution, I agree all day long. It's a fact, no question. We see it in action on every cattle ranch in Texas. (I'm from Texas.)Red Reader_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

P.S. This is a wonderful discussion and typifies what I want to see, especially under my own articles. I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible. The comments were off-topic and needlessly inflammatory. I understand the desire of both parties to defend their faith (or lack thereof) but take it offline if you just have to get into it.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Bling Natural selection isn't even operative in small isolated populations. It's overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow depth of knowledge regarding the modern synthesis. Genetic drift absent natural selection is quite capable of speciation in principle if not in fact. The question is whether there's any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question. In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. It's an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Red I don't like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesn't get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists aren't entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. That's purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Bombadill & Jacktone As an agnostic I'm a bit skeptical of everything including direct H.Sapiens descent from ape-like ancestors. It seems incredibly likely though given the molecular and physiologic homologies with extant chimps & such. Every living thing we have examined shares a virtually and practically identical genetic code too. That's strong scientific evidence. That's tough to plausibly explain away by anything other than common descent from a universal common ancestor. One can logically show that common descent is indistinguishable from common design but unless one can show some empirical evidence for common design it's not going to be very credible. On the other hand everything in our experience with living tissue shows an unbroken cell line. Omne vivo ex ovum - everything comes from an egg. Empirically that's undeniable and there's absolutely no empirical evidence I know of that even hints at anything other than an unbroken ancestral cell line behind every living thing. Granted it's an extrapolation to go back farther in time than people have been observing organisms reproducing and recording what they observed. DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply